It is more than three years since the UK decided to leave the European Union.

In a few weeks from now, the UK will have its third Prime Minister who will have the dubious task of resolving the so called Brexit question. At the time of writing the two contenders for the top job are Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson. But what of their predecessor, Theresa May and her portrayal ?

It is universally acknowledged that Theresa May has failed as Prime Minister with some commentators, most notable those reading and writing for the Grauniad, have suggested that she will be remembered as one of our worst Prime Ministers in modern times.

Is this assessment fair ? Has Theresa May been a failure ?

As a quick précis, Theresa May took over from David Cameron when he resigned after the Leave result was declared. He wasted no time, resigning on the same morning as the declaration.

Five Conservative MPs put themselves forward as candidates: Justice Secretary Michael Gove, Work and Pensions Secretary Stephen Crabb, former Defence Secretary Liam Fox, Minister of State for Energy and Climate Change Andrea Leadsom, and Home Secretary Theresa May.

In the first-round ballot, May, gaining the support of half of Conservative MPs, was placed first with Leadsom in second place. Fox was eliminated on the first ballot; Crabb withdrew later that day. Gove was eliminated in the second round of voting. Before the Conservative Party members were due to cast their votes, Leadsom withdrew from the contest on 11 July. May was appointed party leader later that day, and Prime Minister on 13 July. She appointed Boris Johnson, Fox and Leadsom to her Cabinet, respectively as Foreign Secretary, International Trade Secretary, and Environment Secretary.

During the referendum campaign, May had been a remain campaigner, however, she was now leading a party which itself was split almost as closely as the rest of the country, 50 / 50 , plus or minus five percent. She was now responsible for leading the UK out of the EU.

One has to assume that, during the Leadership campaign, she had formulated and settled upon her management style for how the negotiations would be held. Should she be an all inclusive Premier, taking the views of those around her and, more interestingly, those across the benches wearing yellow, red and green badges. Should she listen to those parties who had previously campaigned for Scottish independence whilst campaigning for continued EU membership? Should the Welsh MPs, who represent a region of Britain rather than a country within the UK, be given any more of a voice than, say, Yorkshire ?

Alternatively, she could adopt the traditional rôle of British Leader and unilaterally decide what she and her appointed Cabinet thought was best. Either approach would be criticised, either approach would be considered to be reasonable; both depending upon ones political raison d’être. Either approach, with hindsight may have worked. However, on 18 April 2017, May announced that she would call a parliamentary vote to hold an early general election saying that it was the “only way to guarantee certainty and security for years ahead”. May had previously ruled out an early election on five occasions over nine months. Her logic was sound; hold a general, secure a majority which was at least as large as she had inherited, gain the legitimacy of an Election win after which she would carry the numbers to get any deal through parliament. She may have had in mind the Labour leader Gordon Brown, whom was Prime Minister after Tony Blair but lost his only General Election to Cameron.

The result of the election, perhaps unsurprisingly, gave the UK a hung parliament, or, for those not entirely familiar with UK political façon de parler, a parliament with no over all control. The Conservatives still had the largest number of seats, but needed to form a coalition and achieved this, at least informally, with the ironically titled Democratic Unionist Party.

The next 18 months was a whirlwind round of flights to and from Brussels for May and her entourage of loyal courtiers who had negotiated a deal with the EU. Not an exit deal, but a transitional deal, which would see the UK and the EU operate on a different understanding, until such time that the final exit deal would be agreed. The transition deal was envisaged, by both sides, to be two years.

Is the transition deal a good deal or a bad deal ? Well, as with all things, it really does depend upon ones point of view and ones view of the UK / EU relationship.

Labour, who at best have been ambiguous about their intentions stated at the beginning that they would only support a deal which was at least as good, if not better, than the deal the UK had prior to the referendum. A peculiar position and one that has, in the following weeks, months and years has become increasingly grey. The Liberals have always been clear; their official part position was and still is, that the UK should not be leaving the EU. They would vote against any deal. This is, at least, a position. The SNP, the party that pushed for an independence vote for Scotland reasoning they were better outside of the UK were, with no sense of irony at all, arguing to be in the EU claiming “we’re all better together”. Just not with the rest of the UK.

At to this the curious statistical curiosity that, approximately, two thirds of MPs themselves actually voted to Remain, regardless of the voting patterns of thier own constituency. Yes, Nigel Farage and his UKIP ilk were vigorous in their desire to leave the EU, but, as has been mentioned oft, UKIP did not actually have any MPs, just some well heeled backers and of course a charismatic leader.

It is, therefore, perhaps not surprising that, regardless of the value of The Deal, the Commons were gridlocked. Vote after vote, debate after debate, MPs rejected the deal and any number of amendments. The Commons was clear in what it did not want, but could not coalesce around what it did want.

And this is, perhaps, the nub of the May quandary. Did she fail, or was she simply trying to implement something that, despite the rhetoric, there is no clear mandate for ? Was she trying to find a middle ground of greyness when the feelings of those around her were seeing the world in the binary black and white of In or Out ?

At this point, I will declare my own hand. I voted to Remain in the EU. For a whole range of reason. I never really thought that the UK would vote to leave. But I was wrong. With this in mind, my feeling of the May Premiership is that she was trying to delivery something that would never really make anybody happy.

Had she taken the collaborative, cross party view approach of spreading the responsibility and therefore the accountability, she would have been accused of being weak, of not being on control, of not being a Leader. As it is, she has been accused of headstrong, stubborn and somebody who was not prepared to listen. I suspect that for those making that claim they mean “not prepared to listen to me”.

Such is the state of both British politics and alas, the British media. Everybody is wrong whom do not agree with me. Mine is the only sane opinion and is considered sane because I hold it.

I also suspect there will be a frisson of schadenfreude within Mrs May as she hands over the keys to Number Ten to whomever takes them. Lets see how the next chaps manages ‘eh ?